JimmyJ63 wrote:Well I'm neither a genius nor an idiot. What is a good average range people generally shoot for?

I studied for about 3-4 hours a day for 8 weeks for a 168. But again, I know people who did the same and got 157s. Just depends on your ability. Take plenty of PTs. That will give you an idea how much you need to be studying.

PoopNpants wrote: I know another guy who put in +40 hours a week for 9 months and got a 159

Holy cow, so much investment so little return... In all that time he could have learned a marketable skill or something.

False, some people "learn" the LSAT just after taking the real thing:...take it from a guy who put in a similarish time investment only to get a 154 on teh real thing.....but then scored a 168 on a pT only a month later and haven't looked back since

Most people who score really high, 175+ take 30+ practice test. So you have to see how long it would take you to do that many test, if that is what your aiming for. Of course there are people who hit that score with much less studying and those who need much more time as well.

thecap91 wrote:Most people who score really high, 175+ take 30+ practice test. So you have to see how long it would take you to do that many test, if that is what your aiming for. Of course there are people who hit that score with much less studying and those who need much more time as well.

Just curious. When someone says they took X practice tests. They mean full (or at least 4 section) timed tests right? Not 30 tests worth of sections? I am shooting for 1 timed practice test/week along with 2 timed sections/day. roughly equating to 3 tests/week.

thecap91 wrote:Most people who score really high, 175+ take 30+ practice test. So you have to see how long it would take you to do that many test, if that is what your aiming for. Of course there are people who hit that score with much less studying and those who need much more time as well.

Just curious. When someone says they took X practice tests. They mean full (or at least 4 section) timed tests right? Not 30 tests worth of sections? I am shooting for 1 timed practice test/week along with 2 timed sections/day. roughly equating to 3 tests/week.

Right now I try and spend 1.5-4 hours/day studying. Some days more intense than others but typically I try and go for 2 sections a day and blind review of them. I will probably shift back to untimed and try to impove my accuracy a bit more. LG untimed i miss maybe 1-2 max for dumb reasons. RC is anywhere from -1 to -4. LR is about -3 to -6. Once I get those consistently with -2 I will go to timed sections and then timed tests..... Is this how you all studied?

Picked up LSAT trainer and getting the cambridge packets to work on my weakness (which seems to be recognizing flaws).

As others have suggested, your time investment will depend on your starting point and your goals.

Take a diagnostic test as soon as you can. If you score in the 140s or low 150s and you want 170+, you should plan to make it a 40 hr/wk kind of commitment. Four months is really not that much time to make a significant jump like that. But if you actually train as hard as you possibly can and devote every second of your spare time to the LSAT, it can be done.

Also, no matter what your starting point is, you need to be drilling questions by type. Don't just take timed sections and full PTs. I'm a 175+ person, and I took the requisite 30+ full PTs, but I also did ~40 PTs worth of question type drilling. That work, along with thorough review, was much more valuable than just burning through timed tests.

What everyone is saying about how it varies per person is true. I would say for the average person (non-idiot non-genius as you call yourself ) hitting around 15 hours per week for 4 months should get you a good return. Obviously more than that would be better.

Also to add another suggestion into the how-to-use-your-time-while-studying box. My course, Manhattan, has harped on the importance of deep reviewing every PT you take. I think it has really helped me, I will go over every question I miss in a PT, detail why each wrong answer is wrong or why in LG it can be eliminated. Then compare that to how my thought process went under time pressure and try and figure out why I missed each question. All of this before looking at the answers. I have been studying for 10-11 weeks, and have seen my PTs go from 166->171. Really helps you avoid falling into the same traps over and over.

I sucked at the LSAT. I got a 151 diagnostic and spent about nine months of intense study to get a 169. Intense study being about 30 hours/wk for about six of those nine months in addition to a full course load and working 20 hours/wk. I also scored below my average by about 3-4 points because I always messed up logic games while actually taking the exam.

It's going to vary largely by how smart you naturally are. I'm not so all those hours, while worth it, didn't give me as large of a return as many people on TLS. The only way to find out is to actually start studying. And start now.

BP Ben wrote:As others have suggested, your time investment will depend on your starting point and your goals.

Take a diagnostic test as soon as you can. If you score in the 140s or low 150s and you want 170+, you should plan to make it a 40 hr/wk kind of commitment. Four months is really not that much time to make a significant jump like that. But if you actually train as hard as you possibly can and devote every second of your spare time to the LSAT, it can be done.

Also, no matter what your starting point is, you need to be drilling questions by type. Don't just take timed sections and full PTs. I'm a 175+ person, and I took the requisite 30+ full PTs, but I also did ~40 PTs worth of question type drilling. That work, along with thorough review, was much more valuable than just burning through timed tests.

I've really only been doing timed PTs/sections since I started, which has gotten me pretty good results, but I decided recently to take everyone's advice and start drilling specific question types and I was wondering, how do you get all of these specifically grouped questions? I see everyone saying "I drilled 55 _____ questions" but in the Manhattan LR book there are only like 10 of each question type.

Also, is there any way to drill specific RC questions? I'm pretty much good with LR and LG, RC is where I need to get consistently down to -1/2

You could try the cambridge packets. I am about to order some myself for LR.

I originally cracked open a kaplan prep book last december and switched to the LG bible in january. Took a diagnostic early January and got in the mid 140s. It was atrocious. Studied through the powerscore books somewhat passively since then and kicked it up a notch at the end of March. Now I am doing blind reviews, cutting problems out for flash cards, ordering the cambridge packets, and working from PT 7 and going up. The test is in June but I plan to retake Oct as well. I work fulltime so my nights involve studying as do my weekends. I can estimate my performance on the order of low 160s now. I can maybe hit mid 160s by June and planning for 170s by Oct.

Yeah the cambridge packets are just organized according to difficulty and question type from PTs 1-20 for Vol. 1, 21-40 Vol. 2, etc.

It's like the Logical Reasoning packet has each type of sufficient assumption, weaken, MBT, etc. question and it's put in order from the easiest (1 star) to the hardest (4). RC is organized similar by difficult and type (humanities, hard science, etc.) and Logical games by classification such as sequencing, matching, relative ordering, determined/un-determined assignment, etc.

So essential, if you already have all PTs than you already have all the questions you'd be getting, it's just organized in a manner that allows one to "Drill" easy i guess?

I worked full-time while studying. I tried to do 2 hours every weeknight (1 hour absolute minimum), and then I took full-length practice tests most saturdays (or else did the equivalent time of studying) and 2-3 hours on Sundays. Did this for about 2 months.